babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Comments

String theorists describe the physics of black holes in five-dimensional spacetime. They found that these five-dimensional objects provide a good approximation of the quark-gluon plasma in one fewer dimension, a relationship similar to the one between a three-dimensional object and its two-dimensional shadow. Image: SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

Recreating the conditions present just after the Big Bang has given experimentalists a glimpse into how the universe formed. Now, scientists have begun to see striking similarities between the properties of the early universe and a theory that aims to unite gravity with quantum mechanics, a long-standing goal for physicists.

“Combining calculations from experiments and theories could help us capture some universal characteristic of nature,” said MIT theoretical physicist Krishna Rajagopal, who discussed these possibilities at the recent Quark Matter conference in Annecy, France.

One millionth of a second after the Big Bang, the universe was a hot, dense sea of freely roaming particles called quarks and gluons. As the universe rapidly cooled, the particles joined together to form protons and neutrons, and the unique state of matter known as quark-gluon plasma disappeared.See: String theory may hold answers about quark-gluon plasma

Why is this important and are there methods from which we can gather, approach historically, and displays phenomenological efforts to describe what is going on in nature. Is string theory approach compatible? This is part of the efforts to push back perspective back toward the beginning of time and the beginning of the universe. While theoretical in it's efforts, these are serious attempts at describing the blackhole.

What are we describing? The BIG BANG.

I relay similar efforts and descriptions by various sources for your perusal.

Using the anti–de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence to relate fermionic quantum critical fields to a gravitational problem, we computed the spectral functions of fermions in the field theory. By increasing the fermion density away from the relativistic quantum critical point, a state emerges with all the features of the Fermi liquid. See:String Theory, Quantum Phase Transitions, and the Emergent Fermi Liquid

TWO UNIVERSES of different dimension and obeying disparate physical laws are rendered completely equivalent by the holographic principle. Theorists have demonstrated this principle mathematically for a specific type of five-dimensional spacetime ("anti–de Sitter") and its four-dimensional boundary. In effect, the 5-D universe is recorded like a hologram on the 4-D surface at its periphery. Superstring theory rules in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point particles operates on the 4-D hologram. A black hole in the 5-D spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example, the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case. Although these two descriptions of the universe seem utterly unalike, no experiment could distinguish between them, even in principle. by Jacob D. Bekenstein

Holography encodes the information in a region of space onto a surface one dimension lower. It sees to be the property of gravity, as is shown by the fact that the area of th event horizon measures the number of internal states of a blackhole, holography would be a one-to-one correspondance between states in our four dimensional world and states in higher dimensions. From a positivist viewpoint, one cannot distinquish which discription is more fundamental. Pg 198, The Universe in Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking

Consider any physical system, made of anything at all- let us call it, The Thing. We require only that The Thing can be enclosed within a finite boundary, which we shall call the Screen(Figure39). We would like to know as much as possible about The Thing. But we cannot touch it directly-we are restrictied to making measurements of it on The Screen. We may send any kind of radiation we like through The Screen, and record what ever changes result The Screen. The Bekenstein bound says that there is a general limit to how many yes/no questions we can answer about The Thing by making observations through The Screen that surrounds it. The number must be less then one quarter the area of The Screen, in Planck units. What if we ask more questions? The principle tells us that either of two things must happen. Either the area of the screen will increase, as a result of doing an experiment that ask questions beyond the limit; or the experiments we do that go beyond the limit will erase or invalidate, the answers to some of the previous questions. At no time can we know more about The thing than the limit, imposed by the area of the Screen.

On the technological reposatory I would say this is already in process apriori to human intention and ordering, one need only look at non human events, I am increasingly looking at the notion of atractors as being a mover of complexity, what you might call an echaton, plato in this regard is hit and miss, I think North Whitehead as I said made some good updates, I tend to look at taoist and vedic based science something which also looks at rules of attraction, in terms of remembering everthing and everthing being non separated in terms of past and future life and death, Terrence Mckenna's update of the iching suggests that that might indeed by a fact of the universe, I don't think its a matter of tapping into it and getting a hold, as continually enframing a living mystery and be honest that we are doing so, we are a problem creating being not a solution based one.

You know science does not work like that. In this case "absentia's heaven description could very much be his/her heaven. That's the point I am making about what we hold in mind does became a "strong attractor" whether we think so or not. What we say, and comes out as a position in life will resonate through our whole life? This is the point about which I believe in the creation of our destinies, and work that must be done about the aspiration of the soul to work toward a perfection that is realized within the reach of our own designs, inherent by a choice we made.

Some of these designs would have been very intricate in terms of model developments. Architecturally designed, as methods of approach to remembering encapsulated. I have my reasons about such wording.

But let me continue then about probabilistic outcome and chaos and complexity.

Quote:

Robert Betts Laughlin (born November 1, 1950) is a professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Stanford University who, together with Horst L. Störmer and Daniel C. Tsui, was awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in physics for his explanation of the fractional quantum Hall effect.

Laughlin was born in Visalia, California. He earned a B.A. in Physics from UC Berkeley in 1972, and his Ph.D. in physics in 1979 at MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. In the period of 2004-2006 he served as the president of KAIST in Daejeon, South Korea.

Laughlin shares similar views to George Chapline on the existence of black holes. See: Robert B. Laughlin

The natural world is regulated both by fundamental laws and by powerful principles of organization that flow out of them which are also transcendent, in that they would continue to hold even if the fundamentals were changed slightly. This is, of course, an ancient idea, but one that has now been experimentally demonstrated by the stupendously accurate reproducibility of certain measurements - in extreme cases parts in a trillion. This accuracy, which cannot be deduced from underlying microscopics, proves that matter acting collectively can generate physical law spontaneously.

Physicists have always argued about which kind of law is more important - fundamental or emergent - but they should stop. The evidence is mounting that ALL physical law is emergent, notably and especially behavior associated with the quantum mechanics of the vacuum. This observation has profound implications for those of us concerned about the future of science. We live not at the end of discovery but at the end of Reductionism, a time in which the false ideology of the human mastery of all things through microscopics is being swept away by events and reason. This is not to say that microscopic law is wrong or has no purpose, but only that it is rendered irrelevant in many circumstances by its children and its children's children, the higher organizational laws of the world.

Quote:

In general usage, complexity tends to be used to characterize something with many parts in intricate arrangement. The study of these complex linkages is the main goal of network theory and network science. In science there are at this time a number of approaches to characterizing complexity, many of which are reflected in this article. Definitions are often tied to the concept of a ‘system’ – a set of parts or elements which have relationships among them differentiated from relationships with other elements outside the relational regime. Many definitions tend to postulate or assume that complexity expresses a condition of numerous elements in a system and numerous forms of relationships among the elements. At the same time, what is complex and what is simple is relative and changes with time.

Some definitions key on the question of the probability of encountering a given condition of a system once characteristics of the system are specified. Warren Weaver has posited that the complexity of a particular system is the degree of difficulty in predicting the properties of the system if the properties of the system’s parts are given. In Weaver's view, complexity comes in two forms: disorganized complexity, and organized complexity. [1]Weaver’s paper has influenced contemporary thinking about complexity. [2]

The approaches which embody concepts of systems, multiple elements, multiple relational regimes, and state spaces might be summarized as implying that complexity arises from the number of distinguishable relational regimes (and their associated state spaces) in a defined system.

Some definitions relate to the algorithmic basis for the expression of a complex phenomenon or model or mathematical expression, as is later set out herein.

Quote:

(Click on image to see larger version)

I linked Robert Laughlin earlier in other thread. About what is emergent. This is a question too then about what Symmetry is to implied. All information existing for us. Our access to it, makes our capabilities, as a choice about where we situated our mind in position as beacons of what comes to us in the future?

You choose the I Ching, and some of us who have investigated this as I did in my own case see what is held in mind, as some method of approach as to "probable outcomes" indicated as chance, by choice? So where is the connection? That's a difficult question.

So that is what I looked for. How the inductive/deductive relation was born for me, about teacher and student being one. To learn how to be in our quests for answers. Our interrelation with the world around us, as to acknowledge teacher in your youtube link and the question when technology no longer resides in the rural community. What length must those be denied to have to reach access, to what all others have access too.

The internet subject is a continuation of this. I just point out that such developments if technology does not exist depends a lot on "availability to information." How much you read and learn. These attributes existed before the internet and still exist now. I want to increase potential and this may be a question about our futures and how we as a society want to change the way things are going. Increasing information accessibility, increases potentials and we know how smart the up and coming youth will pave the way for the future, if we can pave the way for them.

Not a capitalistic approach to mining of our youth minds and costs of access to information, but giving them the tools to exponentially be creative with choices for our futures.

This sounds like a progression of the descussion on granularity. The link to the Robert Laughlin lecture is broken. I'd like to hear his perspective because I don't get his statement "Observing the fine details yeilds nothing but meaningless fact". Granted, there is value in observing the nature of systems. It's what we've pretty much been doing throughout history. But if we want to truly understand causality, I still think "the devil is in the details". I don't understand the benefit of stopping at the marco. Not all of existence is a humancentric experience.

Here's a scary commentary of his. In it he's missing the point that human's are destroying Earth's creatures and their environments. Not the Earth's geology. This is the same emergence theory guy right?

Quote:

"The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control."

The subject of concern for Laughlin is from a condense matter theorist point of view. You understand, top/down bottom/up approaches? This was important for string theorists as a means to unite perspective and Witten was instrumental here by acknowledging. Viscosity(QGP-Quark Gluon Plasma)is a important subject "I found" in relation between the Condensed Matter perspective and String theory. Why I moved too, also to look at the way Laughlin was looking at things.

Working from those perspectives, it is as of late that scientists from their perspective trades are applying and weighting in with their thinking to some of the global issues at hand. This is a new trend in terms of their trade allowing them to see in ways that one may normally not. Why I linked the Economic Manhattan project here on Babble as well as why some in the theorist trade are connecting biology as well.

Why, Web Science was important. You understand the logic? This is significant, because of the Web, why I am a staunch supporting of it.

Honestly I have not waded into the climate change debate myself, knowing of course the information out there because of what I learn of cosmic particle collisions. Of course I was able to tie this link to the LHC research.

So knowing that cosmic particle decays are happening all the time I wanted to know the affect of this on the earth's environment. What affect does this have? So before I could judge, I was looking at all the experiments and derivatives there of, trying to see how particle dissemination may play a part on earth and what some of these affects were.

I think I understand what you mean. You know I remember reading an article back in the late 80's about how science needed more generalists. The article was keying on physics research as an example. And I remember it citing situations where a generalist was paired with a research team. I think the intent, at the time, was simply to bring fresh perspective to a research problem and connect the dots, if you will. Coincidentally, I think part of this trend was the reason M-theory came about. In string theory research, at that time, no one was really seeing the forest for the trees.

There are research tools that certain fields use which have found applications in other fields as well. Fluid dynamics has interesting modeling applications these days. Everything from atmospherics to metallurgy. I think this is part of what the purpose of generalists is intended. That's one thing I meant when I said we should'nt stop at the macro. There are details in other areas that have wider applications and implications. I have to read more of your links yet though.

lol... one of my pet peaves is a quote from above, "masters of the universe" or nature. I don't think most scientists see themselves this way, but whoever coined it is totally misses the point about understanding nature,

lol... one of my pet peaves is a quote from above, "masters of the universe" or nature.

I've come across many of these contentious points as well.....but in the way somebody thinks of String Theory is loaded with it's TOE(theory of Everything) debate....or by example, the "God Particle," termed by Leon M. Lederman. I tried to stress many times it is the newness with which we approach new knowledge( our amazement with discovery that we would assign it to God) about the then Fly's experiments(High Energy Particles) that one became concerned with "how much energies" these particles were being descriptive of with regard to cut off points contained within GHZ.

IN a way I think I am a generalist only because I am trending new knowledge and living on the outskirts of applicability in terms of theoretic definition, as to required components of phenomenology. The necessity of experiment. So you tend to look what people are doing in the science sector.....as well as the moves toward the generalist views of applicability of the trades to other areas of society and experiement.

Stuart Alan Kauffman (28 September 1939) is an US American theoretical biologist and complex systems researcher concerning the origin of life on Earth. He is best known for arguing that the complexity of biological systems and organisms might result as much from self-organization and far-from-equilibrium dynamics as from Darwinian natural selection, as well as for proposing the first models of Boolean networks.

Kauffman presently holds a joint appointment at the University of Calgary in Biological Sciences and in Physics and Astronomy, and is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Philosophy. He is also an iCORE (Informatics Research Circle of Excellence) [1] chair and the director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics

For Example....Kaufman as a biologist speaking on and framing a new perspective on Economic issues, or Lee Smolin?

Having read it, I find it amusing that the language of economics can be recast in the language of physics. That said a lot of it is hard going, mathematically, though the language he uses is familiar to me, having seen things like conserved currents in quantum electrodynamics.I think caution should be taken in placing too much emphasis on the math. The ultimate goal of economics is to describe the monetary interactions of humans and how phenomena rooted in the exchange of goods, services, assets and money have broader repercussions (simple example: What happens if everybody saves money? You induce an economic recession, explained by the paradox of thrift.)

There is much of this cross pollination going on. Murray Gell Mann, toward USC program.

Quote:

In his new role, Gell-Mann will collaborate with cancer researcher and oncologist David Agus, professor of medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of USC and director of the USC Center for Applied Molecular Medicine.

Elizabeth Garrett, interim senior vice president for academic affairs and provost, sees USC as an ideal incubator for their collaborative work.

“We’re honored to have Murray Gell-Mann join the faculty,” she said. “He’s helped us understand our universe at the subatomic level, and he’ll now work with David Agus to investigate an equally challenging frontier — the complexity of human disease. Their partnership demonstrates USC’s firm commitment to interdisciplinary collaboration that provides important new insights and drives society forward.”

How with current experiments is it we can take that science look at the world we live in differently. Different ways may mean...using "the spectrum" in which to extend our look at the earth, the moon, or even our own sun. What does this reveal? Gamma ray allocations of the spectrum...paints a different picture? Let's us see deeper into the construct of nature?

Sometimes the tools in which we use to measure events in space as satellites out, can be used to help detection flow patterns of radiation emissions from the Nuclear Reactors affected by Earthquakes in Japan?

2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami A massive 8.9/9.0 magnitude earthquake hit the Pacific Ocean nearby Northeastern Japan at around 2:46pm on March 11 (JST) causing damage with blackouts, fire and tsunami. On this page we are providing the information regarding the disaster and damage with realtime updates. The large earthquake triggered a tsunami warning for countries all around the Pacific ocean.

I used the Fermi satellite to illustrate such an example of the earthquakes in Japan and the subsequent release of radioactive material?? Is it apropos, as I am not so sure......so I just thought....maybe.......yes indeed?:)

Quote:

How thunderstorms launch particle beams into space

Scientists using NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope have detected beams of antimatter produced above thunderstorms on Earth, a phenomenon never seen before.

Scientists think the antimatter particles were formed in a terrestrial gamma-ray flash (TGF), a brief burst produced inside thunderstorms and shown to be associated with lightning. It is estimated that about 500 TGFs occur daily worldwide, but most go undetected.

"These signals are the first direct evidence that thunderstorms make antimatter particle beams," said Michael Briggs, a member of Fermi's Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) team at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). He presented the findings Monday, during a news briefing at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Seattle. See:NASA's Fermi Catches Thunderstorms Hurling Antimatter into Space

And I think another point about the generalist was also to have the insight to bring people like Murray Gell-Mann into a field like medicine to tackle a problem. Wow... now that should be a productive recipe. Thanks Spectrum.

Edit: Just watched the video, I didn't realize that fluid dynamics was being applied to a field like string theory. I like his interjection at the end. Huh, string theory may yet bring things together in the end.

This multi-colour all-sky image of the microwave sky has been synthesized using data spanning the full frequency range of Planck, which covers the electromagnetic spectrum from 30 to 857 GHz.

The grainy structure of the CMB, with its tiny temperature fluctuations reflecting the primordial density variations from which the cosmic web originated, is clearly visible in the high-latitude regions of the map, where the foreground contribution is not predominant - this is highlighted in the top inset, from the 'first light' survey.

A vast portion of the sky, extending well above and below the Galactic Plane, is dominated by the diffuse emission from gas and dust in the Milky Way, which shines brightly at Planck's frequencies. While the galactic foreground hides the CMB signal from our view, it also demonstrates the extent of our Galaxy's large-scale structure and its emission properties. The two central insets emphasize the strength of the Galactic Plane's emission, as well as the rich texture of loops and spurs emanating from it.

Two extremely active regions of star formation are also highlighted, namely the giant molecular clouds of Perseus (left), and Orion (right).

The left panel shows how the same patch of the sky, along the line of sight to a galaxy cluster, appears when observed through various frequency channels, after careful removal of the dominant signals due to the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and to the emission from our Galaxy. The right panel shows a graph displaying the corresponding frequency channel along the electromagnetic spectrum.Animation of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect

“We can say that the system definitely flows like a liquid,” says Harris.

One of the first lead-ion collisions in the LHC as recorded by the ATLAS experiment on November 8, 2010. Image courtesy CERN.

Quote:

The following press release is being distributed by CERN, the European laboratory for particle physics, about the first collisions of lead ions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory is the U.S. host laboratory for the ATLAS experiment, one of three LHC-based collaborations that will study these collisions to find out what the universe might have looked like some 13 billion years ago. These studies will complement physics research underway at Brookhaven’s Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, where scientists have discovered a new state of matter, called quark-gluon plasma, that existed just microseconds after the Big Bang.CERN Completes Transition to Lead-ion Running at the LHC

It is believed that in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang, our universe was dominated by a strongly interacting phase of nuclear matter at extreme temperatures. An impressive experimental program at the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island has been studying the properties of this nuclear plasma with some rather surprising results. We outline how there may be a deep connection between extra-dimensional gravity of String Theory and the fundamental theories of subatomic particles can solve the mystery of the near-ideal fluid properties of the strongly coupled nuclear plasma.

The notion of a perfect fluid arises in many fields of physics. The term can be applied to any system that is in local equilibrium and has negligible shear viscosity η. In everyday life, viscosity is a familiar property associated with the tendency of a substance to resist flow. From a microscopic perspective, it is a diagnostic of the strength of the interactions between a fluid’s constituents. The shear viscosity measures how disturbances in the system are transmitted to the rest of the system through interactions. If those interactions are strong, neighboring parts of the fluid more readily transmit the disturbances through the system (see figure 1). Thus low shear viscosities indicate significant interaction strength. The ideal gas represents the opposite extreme—it is a system with no interactions and infinite shear viscosity.

Perfect fluids are easy to describe, but few substances on Earth actually behave like them. Although often cited as a low-viscosity liquid, water in fact has a substantial viscosity, as evidenced by its tendency to form eddies and whorls when faced with an obstacle, rather than to flow smoothly as in ideal hydrodynamics. Even the famous helium-3, which can flow out of a container via capillary forces, does not count as a perfect fluid. What black holes teach about strongly coupled particles

The interesting thing for me as a layman was about the theoretic in String Theory research is the idea of pushing perspective back in terms of the Microseconds. So for me it was about looking at collision processes and see how these may be applied to cosmological data as we look out amongst the stars.

Quote:

First direct observation of jet quenching.

At the recent seminar, the LHC’s dedicated heavy-ion experiment, ALICE, confirmed that QGP behaves like an ideal liquid, a phenomenon earlier observed at the US Brookhaven Laboratory’s RHIC facility. This question was indeed one of the main points of this first phase of data analysis, which also included the analysis of secondary particles produced in the lead-lead collisions. ALICE's results already rule out many of the existing theoretical models describing the physics of heavy-ions.

This is an important development in my view and I have been following for some time. The last contention in recognition for me was determinations of "the initial state" as to whether a Gas or a Fluid. How one get's there. This is phenomenologically correct as to understanding expressions of theoretic approach and application. Don't let anyone tell you different.

While we understand Microscopic blackholes quickly dissipate, it is of great interest that if such high energy collision processes are evident in our recognition of those natural processes, then we are faced with our own planet and signals of faster then light expressions through the mediums of earth? We have created many backdrops (Calorimeters) experimentally for comparisons of energy expressions.

It is a really interesting story about the creation of our own universe in conjunction with experimental research a LHC

Quote:

Our work is about comparing the data we collect in the STAR detector with modern calculations, so that we can write down equations on paper that exactly describe how the quark-gluon plasma behaves," says Jerome Lauret from Brookhaven National Laboratory. "One of the most important assumptions we've made is that, for very intense collisions, the quark-gluon plasma behaves according to hydrodynamic calculations in which the matter is like a liquid that flows with no viscosity whatsoever."

Proving that under certain conditions the quark-gluon plasma behaves according to such calculations is an exciting discovery for physicists, as it brings them a little closer to understanding how matter behaves at very small scales. But the challenge remains to determine the properties of the plasma under other conditions.

"We want to measure when the quark-gluon plasma behaves like a perfect fluid with zero viscosity, and when it doesn't," says Lauret. "When it doesn't match our calculations, what parameters do we have to change? If we can put everything together, we might have a model that reproduces everything we see in our detector." See:Probing the Perfect Liquid with the STAR Grid

I like understanding probabilities. But the way in which we thought of the probabilities of finding other life in the universe has been rather limited by our lack of knowledge. Our probability calculations had been based more on statistical weighting than on our understandings of natural processes. The guesstimates have been quite widely different from high to low probabilities. For my part, our being here had to follow some calculable progression... some predictable aspect of nature. Our happening was no fluke. I like the inquiries going on in the field of abiogenesis. They're reducing our reliance on the statistical analysis of the past.

Given that stars have been the factories of the universe’s molecular diversity, The early universe likely hadn’t harboured enough heavy elements to allow for a diverse population of heavier elements. As time goes by and the processes of star generation and destruction goes on, new kinds of molecules will populate the universe with the ashes of the long gone systems and which adds to the diversity of elements.

We can surmise that there’s likely been many planets that have come and gone prior to the formation of our own sun and solar system. And at some point in our solar system’s future the molecules and elements of our own ashes will be gobbled up by the sun, torn apart and recombined into new elements. We ourselves will eventually form a part of the stardust collective that forms other stars and planets. Is the Earth a part of a first generation of life bearing planets? There's another postulation for one of the reasons why we haven’t heard alien transmissions. But anyway...

Our sun and solar system are about 4.6 billion years old, and approximately 500 million years after that the Earth cooled enough for its surface to solidify. One billion years after that single cell organisms began to appear in the fossil record according to Wikipedia. The transitioning from chemical ractions to organic functions is what abiogenesis investigates. As much as searching through the universe for evidence of life will help resolve the question "are we alone?" A more significant question for me is how we came to be? And how many different ways does life form?

The transitioning from chemical ractions to organic functions is what abiogenesis investigates. As much as searching through the universe for evidence of life will help resolve the question "are we alone?" A more significant question for me is how we came to be? And how many different ways does life form?

I guess in a sense you could be scaling perspective about life as if working not only from a location on the arrow of time, but from a location as if given to time as to relate to powers of ten? Nothing wrong with that as I have seen scientists working from this perspective specific as well in relation to what you are saying.

For sure as too, "how many different ways does life form?" So while working from that location I tend to believe there exists "a much greater depth "to all time inclusive" with regard to the connection you have illustrated.

The moon isn't the only hunk of space rock that has been travelling around the sun with the Earth for ages.

Canadian scientists have discovered that the Earth is also accompanied by a "Trojan" companion - an asteroid that travels a constant distance ahead of it at all times, sharing nearly the same orbit around the sun.

A rocky planet with the potential to support liquid water - and therefore the potential to support life - has been found orbiting a sun-like star near our solar system.

The planet, known as HD 85512 b, is among 50 planets outside our solar system, called exoplanets, recently discovered using the HARPS instrument on the 3.6-metre telescope at La Silla Observatory in Chile, operated by the European Southern Observatory.

Like the Earth and Mars, Venus has an ozone layer, European scientists have discovered.

An ozone layer a hundred to a thousand times less dense than Earth's sits at about an altitude of 100 kilometres above the surface of Venus and is five to 10 kilometres thick, the European Space Agency reported in a news release Thursday.

The list of current events and their speakers raises the question of what is leading from experimental processes as well as what constraints are being expressed in challenging current constants of nature? A theoretical observance to proceed with new insights and to lead current technologist to provide for new statistical favors? These are only error bars listed as to provide for further theoretical development?

Quote:

What I find interesting is that Tamburini and Laveder do not stop at discussing the theoretical interpretation of the alleged superluminal motion, but put their hypothesis to the test by comparing known measurements of neutrino velocity on a graph, where the imaginary mass is computed from the momentum of neutrinos and the distance traveled in a dense medium. The data show a very linear behaviour, which may constitute an explanation of the Opera effect: See: Tamburini: Neutrinos Are Majorana Particles, Relativity Is OK